Isaacson v. Boswell
Decision Date | 26 February 1952 |
Docket Number | No. A--591,A--591 |
Citation | 18 N.J.Super. 95,86 A.2d 695 |
Parties | ISAACSON v. BOSWELL et al. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Samuel A. Gennet, Newark, argued the cause for appellant.
No appearance for defendants-respondents.
Before Judges McGEEHAN, JAYNE, and WM. J. BRENNAN, Jr.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
JAYNE, J.A.D.
This action has the complexion of a test case presented in its comparative or contrastive relation to that of Kelleher v. Lozzi, 7 N.J. 17, 80 A.2d 196 (1951). It must be acknowledged that the influence of a legal rule enunciated in a precedential case is measured in accordance with whether it does or does not 'fit' the case at bar. Each decision should always be recognized in the light of its coherence with the factual circumstances of the case it decides.
A chronological narrative of the notable occurrences will reveal the ingredients of the situation with which we are concerned.
On December 23, 1949, a collision occurred on Teaneck Road at its intersection with Cedar Lane at Teaneck, New Jersey, between a motor vehicle owned by Oscar Isaacson and an automobile owned by Louisa Boswell and operated by her agent Donald E. Sherwood, in which mishap both vehicles were damaged. In May 1950 an action was instituted by Louisa Boswell to recover from Isaacson compensatory damages for the injury to her automobile. The action was discontinued in pursuance of a stipulation of dismissal signed by Messrs. Hein & Smith as attorneys of the plaintiff and by one Wilbur C. Sickinger, an adjuster employed by the New York Casualty Company, on behalf of the defendant, Isaacson.
On February 7, 1951, Isaacson, through his attorney, Mr. Samuel A. Gennet, instituted the present action against Louisa Boswell and the driver Sherwood in quest of the recovery of the property damage he sustained in consequence of the collision. Upon motion, preliminary to trial, made on behalf of these defendants, a judgment dismissing the action was entered on June 7, 1951.
Testimony was taken incident to the hearing of the motion and in the interest of precision we quote the following excerpts from the statement of the uncontroverted evidence submitted to us for consideration in the determination of the present appeal:
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prevratil v. Mohr
...and without a proprietary or financial interest in its outcome.... [Id. at 564, 213 A.2d 26.] See also Isaacson v. Boswell, 18 N.J.Super. 95, 99-100, 86 A.2d 695 (App.Div.1952) (holding that settlement of Boswell's prior property damage action by Isaacson's insurance carrier did not preclud......
-
Faught v. Washam, 47064
......cit. 399-400; Daniel v. Adorno, D.C.Mun.App., 107 A.2d 700, 701; Jetton v. Polk, 17 Tenn.App. 395, 68 S.W.2d 127, 131; Isaacson v. Boswell, 18 N.J.Super. 95, 86 A.2d 695, 698; Last v. Brams, 238 Ill.App. 82, 84; Perry v. Faulkner, 98 N.H. 474, 102 A.2d 908. . 4 Graves Truck ......
-
Reardon v. Allen
...exercise of rights under the insurance policy. Klotz v. Lee, 36 N.J.Super. 6, 114 A.2d 746 (App.Div.1955); Isaacson v. Boswell, 18 N.J.Super. 95, 86 A.2d 695 (App.Div.1952); De Carlucci v. Brasley, 16 N.J.Super. 48, 83 A.2d 823 (Law The second issue to be resolved is whether the Reardons ma......
-
Beauchamp v. Clark
...198 N.E. 536; Haluka v. Baker, 68 Ohio App. 308, 34 N.E.2d 68; De Carlucci v. Brasley, 16 N.J.Super. 48, 83 A.2d 823; Isaacson v. Boswell, 18 N.J.Super. 95, 86 A.2d 695; Daniel v. Adorno, D.C.Mun.App., 107 A.2d 700; Last v. Brams, 238 Ill.App. 82; Perry v. Faulkner, 98 N.H. 474, 102 A.2d 90......